Made too easy

Senior academics have always scoffed at ‘made-easies’ or guides but they continue to grow in number and have become an important adjunct of the backlist that sustains scholarly books. This is particularly true of the social sciences and the humanities where guides often see an average student through. And it is not just down-market publishers who churn out these books; almost all mainline publishers bring out simplified versions of standard books.

There are two reasons why made-easies are in demand. First, what we commonly mean by ‘understand’ coincides with ‘simplify’. Without simplification, the subject would be a complex tangle through which we would not be able to make our way. At least, so it would be when we first break ground. In short, we are compelled to reduce the knowable to some kind of schema that would be comprehensible to the average student. So the desire for simplification is justified although this may not apply to the simplification itself because that may end up cutting too many corners.

Second, perhaps more importantly, the average student in the arts and humanities is hopelessly unprepared to tackle the rigours of any subject at the point of entry to higher education. There are deficiencies of language and conceptual thought that need to be worked upon in the first two or three semesters.

In fact, the first year or two are really spent in teaching students what they ought to have learnt in school. This is especially true of language skills, including the regional languages. In fact, the case of the regional languages is a lot worse because of the absence of standard texts for classes 11 and 12 or for the school leaving examinations in many states.

Inadequate language skills or simplicity of language is perhaps the raison d’etre for made easies. If you look closely at some of the successful guides, it is the sheer simplicity of language that strikes you: no compound sentences, no irregular verbs, no qualifiers, and all within a vocabulary range of 1800 most frequently used words. Of course there is a gross oversimplification of subject matter but it is enough to see a student through with a little imagination thrown in.

Take some literature texts that are widely prescribed in university courses. All English literature guides show a similar pattern — a brief summary of the novel, a list of the main characters, chapter-wise summaries, followed by frequently asked questions and their answers. They may all seem the same, but what distinguishes one from the other is how low language can sink. In other words, language is not allowed to hinder passing an examination.

Whether it is good or bad depends on what the student/customer wants. For the vast majority, the end-game is all about getting a degree; it is not about understanding or a critical appreciation of the text. For the publisher, guides are about providing what the bottom-end of the market wants. Thus the belief that publishers should attempt to improve standards has been tossed aside as antiquated and absurd (not to mention patronizing). Success is what counts; and success means money.